Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I didn’t ask for a citation.
Boy so you just didn't read that article at all, didja?
Ah perhaps I was unclear: I am perplexed by your decision to use that article as support for your position, even more so given the recent revelation that you read and (presumably) understood it. It seems rather self-contradictory, given the content of the article is a fairly scathing indictment of the very concept of the "backlash phase".
Okay sure, let me clarify again: An article which is extremely supportive of Pedro Pascal is a comedically bad choice to go with when you're attempting to establish the legitimacy of the claim that "most people" are sick of him (which remember, was the initial position taken which people are arguing against).
Well if I'm remembering right: you didn't understand an article, pretended you did, were condescending about it then hastily attempted to save face by trying several times to reframe the issue.
I'm really not the right person to answer this one, I'm in this as deep as you are with just as little an idea as to why.
Classic motte and bailey argument you're up against here.